Timeline for Requests for reopen and undelete votes for closed and deleted questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | user9072 | @EricWofsey if what are in my opinion proper procedures would be followed this and related situations would go over much more smoothly. The users showing your type of reaction in such situations are in my firm opinion in the end not all that helpful either, but rather make a bad situation worse. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:43 | comment | added | Hugh Thomas | I was one of the people voting to close. I thought there were trivial counter-examples. I realize now that my trivial counter-examples are not counter-examples. My apologies to the OP. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:40 | comment | added | Eric Wofsey | @quid: Obviously it is better with context, but that doesn't mean it was a bad question that needed to be put on hold, let alone put on hold with the swiftness and accompanying downvotes normally given only to calculus questions and their ilk. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @EricWofsey Agree with you very strongly. Again I would ask closers: if you are closing because you think the question is "not research level", then please please please take a moment to ask yourself whether you know enough about the subject to make that call. (If you don't, then leave it alone.) If the real reason for closure is that you think it's not well written, then please leave a note for the poor newcomer explaining how the post might be improved. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | user9072 | @EricWofsey is the question better with or without the context? | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | Eric Wofsey | I don't agree at all the the presentation was particularly poor, and find it appalling that it got 5 downvotes and was closed within an hour. It could have been written better, sure, but I strongly agree with Todd's remark that the question is self-motivating. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:29 | history | edited | Todd TrimbleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
the question was reopened
|
| Nov 12, 2015 at 16:25 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2015 at 22:48 | comment | added | user9072 | I saw that comment. Thanks for adding it. To reply also to your second remark from the earlier comment: there is no disagreement there. I said right away 'It might be a good idea though to explain this when closing.' Certainly I am not blind to the fact that a closure without comment and the most generic reason is not optimal. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 22:43 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @quid I added already a comment to the post suggesting adding some context. I can see the point of your last comment, but I think it would be hard getting community consensus on making it a rule. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 22:22 | comment | added | user9072 | Yes, unfortunately, that's true. Many a complicated debate could have been avoided would there be only consensus that the official guide, which asks for context, on how to ask a question is somewhat binding (and to be sure that guide was written by "us" not SE). Of course, a snappy question can "fly" and if it flies it might even fly higher than the same question with context. But, first, it is more fragile so to say. And also it does not alter the fact that it would still be a ultimately better question with some context even if it might get less upvotes. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 21:18 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @quid There is ample precedent for short, snappy questions which don't include motivations/context, that have been well received. It is highly questionable whether questions that are short and snappy are ipso facto "poor". In any case, if this is the only objection, then I have to think that the reaction was likewise "poorly presented" (except perhaps for the possibility it does have a trivial answer I have overlooked). | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 20:07 | comment | added | user9072 | Point taken on the "might." The rewrite you propose is still a very poorly presented question, as it lacks all context and motivation. By contrast the well-received question you reference gives some context. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 20:00 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @quid We've both been here a long time. I said they might suggest that. No explanation is given, so we are left guessing what the problem actually is. I don't think the question is terribly written; do you think that? If we tweaked it to read, "Let $X$ be a compact topological manifold with boundary, and suppose its interior is homeomorphic to an (open) ball. Is $X$ a (closed) ball?", then is it still terribly written? I wouldn't really think so. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 19:54 | comment | added | user9072 | The downvotes and closure do not necessarily suggest it is trivial. Rather they might just suggest the question is terribly written and thus deemed unsuitable, irrespective of its precise mathematical content. Let me add that I do not have a personal opinion on the content of this particular question (I also did not vote on it), but I am of the opinion that there are minimal standards on the presentation that should be enforced. It might be a good idea though to explain this when closing. | |
| S Nov 11, 2015 at 19:41 | history | answered | Todd TrimbleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Nov 11, 2015 at 19:41 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd TrimbleMod |